Jason L. of AiG brought up a good point, when discussing/debating beliefs and evidences a its a good idea to explain your worldview to the other person;
What questions do you have?
Do you understand that every person has bias/presupposition because everyone has a worldview? We're all different...
Some people get a false idea as having control group in science as being possible in real life too... The fallacy/myth of nuetrality,

I have had this problem a lot. When people debate me, they start responding to what they have read from another person that believes YEC and expect me to defend THEIR claims. I do not share the same beliefs with all other YEC. There are always some differences.

I have also ran across people who claim that they do not have presuppositions, which is impossible. Even agnostics have some beliefs about the world that they interpret new data with, for example, an agnostic might be a naturalist, with a presupposition that the world has remained unaffected by supernatural occurrences. He cannot KNOW this, but he may suppose this "based on lack of evidence for supernatural events". This is a fallacious argument, an argument from silence. You cannot prove a negative claim such as this. Furthermore, we have written history of people attesting to the miracles of Jesus Christ, sacrificing their lives to bear witness to them, therefore there is strong evidence for supernatural occurrences having occurred at some points in history.

In the Ultmate Proof of Creation video [see 1] it talks about the "pretend nuetrality falacy" and that being contrary to the biblical 'worldview' (after part 1) This Frontline Ministries website I found [see 2] says similar things paraprasing -- Neutrality is impossible because facts and evidences are interpreted (bias) by means of how one interprets reality .

In the Ultmate Proof of Creation video [see 1] it talks about the "pretend nuetrality falacy" and that being contrary to the biblical 'worldview' (after part 1) This Frontline Ministries website I found [see 2] says similar things paraprasing -- Neutrality is impossible because facts and evidences are interpreted (bias) by means of how one interprets reality .

I have had this problem a lot. When people debate me, they start responding to what they have read from another person that believes YEC and expect me to defend THEIR claims. I do not share the same beliefs with all other YEC. There are always some differences.

I have also ran across people who claim that they do not have presuppositions, which is impossible. Even agnostics have some beliefs about the world that they interpret new data with, for example, an agnostic might be a naturalist, with a presupposition that the world has remained unaffected by supernatural occurrences. He cannot KNOW this, but he may suppose this "based on lack of evidence for supernatural events". This is a fallacious argument, an argument from silence. You cannot prove a negative claim such as this. Furthermore, we have written history of people attesting to the miracles of Jesus Christ, sacrificing their lives to bear witness to them, therefore there is strong evidence for supernatural occurrences having occurred at some points in history.

The only assumption I make (intentionally and philosophically that is, I occasionally make assumptions out of laziness) is that my senses perceive reality accurately in some degree in some way. This is the founding assumption you need to have any worldview, the assumption you need to make before reading the bible or observing the world or learning anything. Beyond that I try to take nothing for granted.

As far as naturalists rejecting supernatural causes - I neither accept nor reject supernatural causes because I don't know what "supernatural" means. Nobody has ever explained to me where nature ends and the supernatural begins. Or given me an example of a supernatural thing and explained (in a way that made sense) what makes it supernatural.

I think we call things supernatural when we haven't the foggiest idea what's going on.

In the Ultmate Proof of Creation video [see 1] it talks about the "pretend nuetrality falacy" and that being contrary to the biblical 'worldview' (after part 1) This Frontline Ministries website I found [see 2] says similar things paraprasing -- Neutrality is impossible because facts and evidences are interpreted (bias) by means of how one interprets reality .

In the Ultmate Proof of Creation video [see 1] it talks about the "pretend nuetrality falacy" and that being contrary to the biblical 'worldview' (after part 1) This Frontline Ministries website I found [see 2] says similar things paraprasing -- Neutrality is impossible because facts and evidences are interpreted (bias) by means of how one interprets reality .

This is the "all opinions are equally valid so reject science and go with what feels good or scares you less instead" line of apologetics. They try to muddy the waters and tell you truth is unattainable through empirical means just to get you to go with your emotions instead.

The only assumption I make (intentionally and philosophically that is, I occasionally make assumptions out of laziness) is that my senses perceive reality accurately in some degree in some way. This is the founding assumption you need to have any worldview, the assumption you need to make before reading the bible or observing the world or learning anything. Beyond that I try to take nothing for granted.

As far as naturalists rejecting supernatural causes - I neither accept nor reject supernatural causes because I don't know what "supernatural" means. Nobody has ever explained to me where nature ends and the supernatural begins. Or given me an example of a supernatural thing and explained (in a way that made sense) what makes it supernatural.

I think we call things supernatural when we haven't the foggiest idea what's going on.

su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l) adj.1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. n.

This is the "all opinions are equally valid so reject science and go with what feels good or scares you less instead" line of apologetics. They try to muddy the waters and tell you truth is unattainable through empirical means just to get you to go with your emotions instead.

Looking at your quote that sounds like Unitarian Universalism; for the all opinions equally valid part minus the mockery.

but 'I' believe that truth - lowercase t - is knowable because of a "uniformity of nature" as Lisle calls it, has been put into place by Jesus.

I call it the prime reality and I think that might be on the same context as what he says. Don't know where you got your quote from? I think you were trying to imply that religious people oppose science? Everyone has religion in the context of rules they live by... for example Atheism was classified as a religion by the Supreme Court (see Kaufman v. McCaughtry).

It also appears that your just mocking, what would you like to discuss?

"Looking at your quote that sounds like Unitarian Universalism; for the all opinions equally valid part minus the mockery. "

Pluralism and moral relativism are not quite the same thing. My views are eclectic, like UU's I draw from many sources for my beliefs - but I do not believe all views are morally equal. Just equally worth thinking/learning about.

"but 'I' believe that truth - lowercase t - is knowable because of a "uniformity of nature" as Lisle calls it, has been put into place by Jesus."

I don't know how anyone could even begin to establish that to be true.

"I call it the prime reality and I think that might be on the same context as what he says. Don't know where you got your quote from?"

The quote was me paraphrasing the form of argument.

"I think you were trying to imply that religious people oppose science?"

No, though of course some do.

"Everyone has religion in the context of rules they live by..."

Your definition of religion is rules to live by? And atheism has no rules whatsoever. Atheists do of course, but generally not dogmatic or authoritarian or un-questionable ones, which is what I think of when I think of "religion".

"for example Atheism was classified as a religion by the Supreme Court (see Kaufman v. McCaughtry)."

No, it was just decided to have equal protection under the first amendment. The supreme court are not the dictionary police nor do they have the power under the constitution to dictate philosophical truths.

"It also appears that your just mocking, what would you like to discuss?"

I was perhaps mocking that form of argument a bit (as I think it is dishonest and irrational), it was not meant to be hostile to you or theists in general.

Lets say you were walking along the shore of a lake and you found a rock that was floating 1 foot above the water and you picked it up and whenever you put it down it always stayed one foot away from the water as though it were being pushed away by a magnet. You mess around with it some more, examine it, scrutinize it and you have no idea why it has this property or what the mechanism behind it is.

Could you then logically conclude that it must be because the rock was enchanted by fairies?

Or would that be a leap that could not logically or empirically be substantiated?

Why is attributing an inexplicable property of the universe to a deity any different?

To quote your article:

"In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws."

It's the other way around, the people who wrote the bible had eyes. They observed constant behaviors for themselves then assumed their deity was responsible for them the same way people saw lightning and assumed zeus was responsible for it. The fact that the bible attributes some aspect of reality that is real to yahweh no more proves yahweh is responsible for it then the fact that lightning is real proves zeus is responsible for it. If the koran said allah makes the rain fall would that substantiate the claims of islam?

"Evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals."

No, there are countless theists and deists who support evolution (the theists that accept evolution actually outnumber the atheists that do in most countries). And "laws" are not immutable rules, "laws" of science have been "broken" many times, This is why they are referred to by less dogmatic scientists as scientific principles because they are only universally true in principle (so far as we have observed).

Statements like "God created the laws of chemistry in just the right way so that life would be possible" could be modified to change "god" to "Brahma" and it would be no more or less substantiated.

"The properties of elements and compounds are not arbitrary. In fact, the elements can be logically organized into a periodic table based on their physical properties. Substances in the same column on the table tend to have similar properties."

That makes no sense, the periodic table is what isn't arbitrary not the elements themselves.

"The secular naturalist cannot account for the laws of mathematics."

That's just silly, all "laws" are man-made inventions and systems for classifying, quantifying and describing information. Even if there was a creator that made the properties of the universe we invented math and "laws" of physics and logic to try to describe and understand and exploit those properties. This is like saying if I make and use a hammer that proves the existence of god because god made hammers and has a "hammer-like" nature.

He then attempts to deal with this but the "laws" themselves are man-made and separate from the properties they attempt (inadequately) to describe.

That is just nutty, total disconnect in logic there. And even if I accepted his assertion the "law" of non-contradiction, like many laws, is easily breakable - I imagine he's heard of relativity where a line or the path of an object is both straight and curved depending on the position of the observer and speed is relative to the point of reference etc.

"The laws of nature apply in the future just as they have applied in the past; this is one of the most basic assumptions in all of science. Without this assumption, science would be impossible."

It's not an assumption, it's an observation, and one that has been found to not be true many times over.

His whole argument is based on abductive reasoning which if you don't know is basically concluding something is true not based on logic or evidence, but based on an assumption's ability (if it were true) to explain something. For instance if I can't find my keys tomorrow morning one possible explanation is that the CIA hid them as part of a mind control experiment to see how I would react. This, if it were true, would explain my missing keys. But the fact that it would, if true, explain my not being able to find my keys is not, by itself, proof or even evidence. Abductive reasoning is basically just imagination and is generally only used to produce hypothetical ideas which then must be substantiated logically or empirically.

"How could we communicate without universal laws?"

I have no idea. For all I know this is the only type of universe that's possible. Or for all I know the universe on a fundamental level is pure chaos and order and apparent "laws" are what you get when you zoom out far enough from that chaos and patterns emerge. According to quantum experiments on a small scale particles are in multiple places simultaneously and other particles are popping into and out of existence constantly so who knows.

But not knowing doesn't give us license to fill in the blanks however we like, and that's the same thing people did with zeus and thor. It didn't give them any new information and it doesn't give us any new information either.

Your Welcome, for me personally I wonder if 'laws' of logic are just attributes of our nature, we are made in the image of God (Bible believers see Genesis 1:27). On the topic of worldviews we could make a chart and compare or contrast different topics and discuss them. That would help to sort things out... (may have mentioned this before)

1. Your definition of religion is rules to live by? And atheism has no rules whatsoever. Atheists do of course, but generally not dogmatic or authoritarian or un-questionable ones, which is what I think of when I think of "religion".

2. No, it was just decided to have equal protection under the first amendment. The supreme court are not the dictionary police nor do they have the power under the constitution to dictate philosophical truths.

3. I was perhaps mocking that form of argument a bit (as I think it is dishonest and irrational), it was not meant to be hostile to you or theists in general.

4. Lets say you were walking along the shore of a lake and you found a rock that was floating 1 foot above the water and you picked it up and whenever you put it down it always stayed one foot away from the water as though it were being pushed away by a magnet. You mess around with it some more, examine it, scrutinize it and you have no idea why it has this property or what the mechanism behind it is.

Could you then logically conclude that it must be because the rock was enchanted by fairies?

Or would that be a leap that could not logically or empirically be substantiated?

5. Why is attributing an inexplicable property of the universe to a deity any different?

To quote your article:

"In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws."

6. It's the other way around, the people who wrote the bible had eyes. They observed constant behaviors for themselves then assumed their deity was responsible for them the same way people saw lightning and assumed zeus was responsible for it. The fact that the bible attributes some aspect of reality that is real to yahweh no more proves yahweh is responsible for it then the fact that lightning is real proves zeus is responsible for it. If the koran said allah makes the rain fall would that substantiate the claims of islam?

7. No, there are countless theists and deists who support evolution (the theists that accept evolution actually outnumber the atheists that do in most countries).

8. And "laws" are not immutable rules, "laws" of science have been "broken" many times, This is why they are referred to by less dogmatic scientists as scientific principles because they are only universally true in principle (so far as we have observed).

9. Statements like "God created the laws of chemistry in just the right way so that life would be possible" could be modified to change "god" to "Brahma" and it would be no more or less substantiated.

10. That makes no sense, the periodic table is what isn't arbitrary not the elements themselves.

11. That's just silly, all "laws" are man-made inventions and systems for classifying, quantifying and describing information. Even if there was a creator that made the properties of the universe we invented math and "laws" of physics and logic to try to describe and understand and exploit those properties. This is like saying if I make and use a hammer that proves the existence of god because god made hammers and has a "hammer-like" nature.

12. That is just nutty, total disconnect in logic there. And even if I accepted his assertion the "law" of non-contradiction, like many laws, is easily breakable - I imagine he's heard of relativity where a line or the path of an object is both straight and curved depending on the position of the observer and speed is relative to the point of reference etc.

13. It's not an assumption, it's an observation, and one that has been found to not be true many times over.

14. His whole argument is based on abductive reasoning which if you don't know is basically concluding something is true not based on logic or evidence, but based on an assumption's ability (if it were true) to explain something. For instance if I can't find my keys tomorrow morning one possible explanation is that the CIA hid them as part of a mind control experiment to see how I would react. This, if it were true, would explain my missing keys. But the fact that it would, if true, explain my not being able to find my keys is not, by itself, proof or even evidence. Abductive reasoning is basically just imagination and is generally only used to produce hypothetical ideas which then must be substantiated logically or empirically.

15. I have no idea. For all I know this is the only type of universe that's possible. Or for all I know the universe on a fundamental level is pure chaos and order and apparent "laws" are what you get when you zoom out far enough from that chaos and patterns emerge. According to quantum experiments on a small scale particles are in multiple places simultaneously and other particles are popping into and out of existence constantly so who knows.

16. But not knowing doesn't give us license to fill in the blanks however we like, and that's the same thing people did with zeus and thor. It didn't give them any new information and it doesn't give us any new information either.

1. The atheists rule is that they get to make the rules because there is nothing to higher to be accountable to.

2. Atheism IS a belief system, just like any other religion. The atheist believes that there is no God, just as strongly and with as much faith as the theist believes there is a God. It is agnosticism which is not a religion since it has literally no beliefs.

3. Mocking is a form of ridicule...

4. It implies something supernatural

5. This is why I am a theistic agnostic, I believe in the existence of God due to the scientific signposts that point to him, however I am not 100% sure who God is. However this doesn't at all mean that therefore God is not real, all it does is shift the debate to theology in order to determine which Religion seems the most accurate representation of this supernatural cause which science has sign posts pointing to.

6. Everything ".. waxes old like a garment" (quoted in both Psalm 102:25-27, and also Hebrews 1:10-12).

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

7. But the atheist does

8. Which laws are these? (I asked you in another thread and didn't get a response)

9. And? As I said even if we are calling God the wrong name (and I am not suggesting we are), that doesn't demonstrate that God doesn't exist.

10. He is getting at how ordered the elements are in that they can fit within the table according to filled shells and electrons and how like elements are close together.

11. Not even. The secular atheist is a naturalist who claims that there is nothing in the world bar matter and energy... Yet what are numbers? They are abstract objects just like mathematics, which doesn't exist as matter nor energy.. Hence the atheist cannot account for abstract objects outside of the material world, therefore...

12. Like which laws? Care to demonstrate where the law of non-contradiction can be broken?

13. .... You can't observe the future..... You make assumptions about the future based on the observations of the past, they are still assumptions.

14. That is exactly how evolution works... We see similarities in fossils... 'Evolution did it' despite no test to determine what the cause was.